Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, the first thing we need is Pierre Bordry back at AFLD and both the UCI and ASO to leave them to get on with their job, not tell them what they can and can't look for. 2008 was the brightest false dawn we ever had.

 

[Melo]

Next year TdF top 5: 1. Froome 2. Thomas 3. Landa 4. Kwiatkowski 5. Konig. Remember this.

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

for me to believe it would have to be more, much more.

Like what exactly? It's an honest question. I'm not setting some sort of rhetorical trap and certainly won't criticize you for an opinion. We all have opinions.

So this got me thinking, what would Sky have to do to convince you (as in anyone who thinks they're doping) that they are clean?

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

for me to believe it would have to be more, much more.

Like what exactly? It's an honest question. I'm not setting some sort of rhetorical trap and certainly won't criticize you for an opinion. We all have opinions.

So this got me thinking, what would Sky have to do to convince you (as in anyone who thinks they're doping) that they are clean?

I think for members on this forum that is an impossible task as that would have to involve being proven wrong by facts

 

[the sceptic]

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

 

[carton]

Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

So if Froome all of the sudden started climbing back to were he was in 2008, you would be more convinced he has been clean all along? Or is there nothing he can do in any case given his performances to date to convince you he's been riding clean?

Also, can you define full transparency?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: Re:

for me to believe it would have to be more, much more.

Like what exactly? It's an honest question. I'm not setting some sort of rhetorical trap and certainly won't criticize you for an opinion. We all have opinions.

So this got me thinking, what would Sky have to do to convince you (as in anyone who thinks they're doping) that they are clean?

1. Start riding like they are clean instead of matching or beating doped performances past and present.

2. Stop getting caught in blatant lies about power numbers, the details of tropical diseases, training methods, sand shoes, etc....

3. Stop claiming that both losing and gaining weight add power.

4. Stop claiming transparency and offering none.

I could go on but mostly #1.

Why does it matter to you what it would take? No one here thinks the other contenders are clean, the question is with all the evidence of doping, why on earth does anyone believe them?

 

[Saint Unix]

Re: Re:

So this got me thinking, what would Sky have to do to convince you (as in anyone who thinks they're doping) that they are clean?

Releasing blood values and power data for Froome, Thomas, Kennaugh and Porte would be a start. That would mean all the data from since they started riding for Sky until now.

The main problem most people have with Froome especially, but also Thomas this year is that they never showed that they had the ability to win GTs. For Froome the ability to demolish everyone on climbs and flat TTs just showed up overnight, and there HAS to be something in the pre-2011 data that shows that this could be possible somehow.

 

[Walkman]

Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

 

[Poursuivant]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Bingo!

 

[slim charles]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

I have said this on another thread but cycling isn't allowed late bloomers? Especially considering Froome got into the professional pelleton purely through his talent and hard work as he didn't any infrastructure around compared to probably 90/95% of the peleton.

 

[the sceptic]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

So if Froome all of the sudden started climbing back to were he was in 2008, you would be more convinced he has been clean all along? Or is there nothing he can do in any case given his performances to date to convince you he's been riding clean?

Also, can you define full transparency?

no, nothing can change my mind about Froome 2011-2015.

full transparency would mean publishing all power and blood data, not just cherry picking whatever data that makes them look cleans. And of course this would mean data from their entire careers. Not just after magical transformations.

 

[slim charles]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

I have said this on another thread but cycling isn't allowed late bloomers? Especially considering Froome got into the professional pelleton purely through his talent and hard work as he didn't any infrastructure around compared to probably 90/95% of the peleton.

Everything is possible. But there are also other possibilities, since transformations such as this one is practically never seen before...

 

[carton]

Re: Re:

full transparency would mean publishing all power and blood data, not just cherry picking whatever data that makes them look cleans. And of course this would mean data from their entire careers. Not just after magical transformations.

Releasing blood values and power data for Froome, Thomas, Kennaugh and Porte would be a start. That would mean all the data from since they started riding for Sky until now.

The main problem most people have with Froome especially, but also Thomas this year is that they never showed that they had the ability to win GTs. For Froome the ability to demolish everyone on climbs and flat TTs just showed up overnight, and there HAS to be something in the pre-2011 data that shows that this could be possible somehow.

Yeah, but what could that show? I mean, anything really satisfying would have to have helped Froome win more than the C*ck and Jock races. Maybe a V02max in the high 80s he was "secretly" tested for could be suddenly unearthed (who would buy that, though). But what could the power data show? How would insanely unusual doped progression be any different than an insanely unusual non-doped one?

no, nothing can change my mind about Froome 2011-2015.

I guess what I really find both interesting and problematic this line of reasoning is not the logic of it, which I think is sound enough (to raise serious suspicions, not, in my view, to in and of itself prove doping). You would expect GT contenders to show real signs of extraordinary talent early on. Particularly since the performances now are pushing the boundaries of what is though to be humanly possible (even, apparently, by Sky themselves). But where does that leave Sky? They cannot do anything at this point to change how the riders have progressed up to this point. Thus, anything they do now will not assuage the skeptics one iota. If the die has truly been cast, then "full transparency" would be a completely wasted effort. It wouldn't change anyone's mind as it does not address the "original sin". So why do it?

 

[buckle]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

I have said this on another thread but cycling isn't allowed late bloomers? Especially considering Froome got into the professional pelleton purely through his talent and hard work as he didn't any infrastructure around compared to probably 90/95% of the peleton.

Sky's speciality is late bloomers ...

Froome is the second one in a row after Wiggins. This latter was so outstanding he never rode a GT again. All very suspicious. Now we have Thomas. A picture is emerging where Brailsford has access to some unusual assistance.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

I have said this on another thread but cycling isn't allowed late bloomers?

No. Not really. Cycling is a very simple sport. Power output. You either got it or you don't. This is not really obvious since the advent of EPO, but recently there have been some better examples.

And all riders "work hard" and "sacrifice" to get to the elite level.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

I have said this on another thread but cycling isn't allowed late bloomers? Especially considering Froome got into the professional pelleton purely through his talent and hard work as he didn't any infrastructure around compared to probably 90/95% of the peleton.

Sky's speciality is late bloomers ...

Froome is the second one in a row after Wiggins. This latter was so outstanding he never rode a GT again. All very suspicious. Now we have Thomas. A picture is emerging where Brailsford has access to some unusual assistance.

Not really. Wiggins and Thomas have always been seen as exceptional talents and why would they be challenging for GC whilst racing on the track at the same time. It was with Garmin where Wiggins came 3rd/4th in the TDF after finally committing full time to the road.

Thomas with his talent and losing weight is not as surprising as some think that he can climb, him and Wiggins both have massive engines. Are they natural climbers? No. Which is why when attacks are put in Thomas is dropped and has to work his way back. To be honest I can't see him winning a GT, definitely not the TDF as there will always be better natural climbers. Thomas is a fighter

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

WADA or VADA?

Or will people still see WADA as corrupt?

The short explanation is WADA has no authority to sanction anyone. Note well that Armstrong's ban was a recommendation sent to the cycling federation who reluctantly enforced the recommendation. So, WADA/NADOs are not "corrupt" per se. At least, not in a known way.

It's the sports federations where the anti-doping authority rests at the international elite level. It just so happens the cycling federation is the source of a great deal of corruption. VADA model isn't any better in this regard.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

I have said this on another thread but cycling isn't allowed late bloomers? Especially considering Froome got into the professional pelleton purely through his talent and hard work as he didn't any infrastructure around compared to probably 90/95% of the peleton.

But he isn't a late bloomer. There was no sort of progression. If he had started finishing top 10 in 1 week stage races at 26, then winning 1 week stage races at 27 and competing for Grand Tours at age 28, we could call him a late bloomer, and that could have been explained by him coming from a non-traditional cycling country. But fact is he transformed almost overnight: until 2011 Vuelta he was a very mediocre rider, then from the 2011 Vuelta onward he was one of the best cyclists in the world.

Froome is supposed to have a unique physiology - unmatched in the current peloton and even in history. Now, why did he never, ever show even a glimpse of that unique physiology before the 2011 Vuelta? If you are insanely talented, it will shine through, even if the circumstances aren't exactly favorable. Contador had to ride his junior races on an old steel bike, yet still showed great climbing skills which impressed many.

Froome showed nothing. Nothing. Riders like Valverde, Quintana, Nibali, Contador, they competed with the very best in the first few years of their careers: before turning 24:
Valverde had finished 3rd in la Vuelta and won stages in that race, finished 2nd in the WCRR, and won a stage in Vuelta al Pais Vasco.
Quintana had won Vuelta al Pais Vasco and won a stage and finished 2nd at the Tour.
Nibali had won Giro del Trentino and had 3 top 20 finishes in GTs.
Contador had won mountain stages in the Tour de Suisse and Tour de Romandie, won on Willunga Hill in the Tour Down Under, won Setmana Catalana and had several top 5 GC placings in Pro Tour races. Even in early 2005 he showed some impressive performances despite suffering a great illness in 2004.

Froome showed zip zilch nada nothing. I'm not asking for similar results to the riders above - but for crying out loud his best results were 4th place at the Herald Sun Tour and 3rd in the Giro del Appenino - and judging from the results he was part of a 3 men break.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

WADA or VADA?

Or will people still see WADA as corrupt?

The short explanation is WADA has no authority to sanction anyone. Note well that Armstrong's ban was a recommendation sent to the cycling federation who reluctantly enforced the recommendation. So, WADA/NADOs are not "corrupt" per se. At least, not in a known way.

It's the sports federations where the authority and corruption lie. VADA model isn't any better in this regard.

Understand that, but that's why I mentioned them as an independent body to investigate power, data, biological passports etc.

This can be done, UFC has partnered with USADA to have them do all their drug testing and monitoring on all of their fighters

 

[Ironhead Slim]

Re: Re:

no, nothing can change my mind about Froome 2011-2015.

I guess what I really find both interesting and problematic this line of reasoning is not the logic of it, which I think is sound enough (to raise serious suspicions, not, in my view, to in and of itself prove doping). You would expect GT contenders to show real signs of extraordinary talent early on. Particularly since the performances now are pushing the boundaries of what is though to be humanly possible (even, apparently, by Sky themselves). But where does that leave Sky? They cannot do anything at this point to change how the riders have progressed up to this point. Thus, anything they do now will not assuage the skeptics one iota. If the die has truly been cast, then "full transparency" would be a completely wasted effort. It wouldn't change anyone's mind as it does not address the "original sin". So why do it?[/quote]

No, there has to be a reason why the overnight transformation, (for more than one Sky rider). This is so freaking like 'sorry you don't believe in miracles" that I think this has to be a huge joke that I must not be in on. Something big happened. We don't know what it is. The only reasonable cause with the info available is doping. On top of that the transparency is doled out in bits. Add in some sketchy hires and fires. Yeah, full transparency would not be wasted because there has to be a reason. We want to know!

 

[DirtyWorks]

Re: Re:

Froome showed nothing. Nothing. Riders like Valverde, Quintana, Nibali, Contador, they competed with the very best in the first few years of their careers: before turning 24:

I can't be bothered to dig it up, but long ago the UCI's Africa development program had Froome come to Agile for testing and found an unexceptional rider. It was on the UCI's "old" site and probably no longer available.

FWIW, the UCI should be given some credit for getting an African team into the elite level. The African development program has been a project of theirs for a very long time. Africa is a big place, so hopefully more to come.

 

[Walkman]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

Not arguing that his transformations isn't highly suspicious, just pointing out things I find funny. And sometimes I wonder how people here think. It's like people think it's impossible to improve without doping. Not talking about Froome now but as soon as someone starts doing better it's always doping. People seems to believe every damn cyclists is maximizing every possible parameter and thus no improvement can ever be expected since they are already operating at 100%. It's so naive.

 

[gazr99]

Re: Re:

full transparency and Froome back at 2008 climbing levels would be a good start.

Yes, because making any progress after the age of 23 is impossible.

Man, your SKY hate is strong. Yet your affection for Contador is still strong, care to elaborate? Doping is ok as long as it's your favorite rider who does it?

Progress is possible [at the age of 25], but when you progress from being mediocre to being the best ever, yes it is kind of suspicious. Don't get me wrong, performances like these would be suspicious even if Froome had a great career before [just like lot of people thought Contador's were], but he wasn't even as good as Roche or something like that.

I have said this on another thread but cycling isn't allowed late bloomers? Especially considering Froome got into the professional pelleton purely through his talent and hard work as he didn't any infrastructure around compared to probably 90/95% of the peleton.

But he isn't a late bloomer. There was no sort of progression. If he had started finishing top 10 in 1 week stage races at 26, then winning 1 week stage races at 27 and competing for Grand Tours at age 28, we could call him a late bloomer, and that could have been explained by him coming from a non-traditional cycling country. But fact is he transformed almost overnight: until 2011 Vuelta he was a very mediocre rider, then from the 2011 Vuelta onward he was one of the best cyclists in the world.

Froome is supposed to have a unique physiology - unmatched in the current peloton and even in history. Now, why did he never, ever show even a glimpse of that unique physiology before the 2011 Vuelta? If you are insanely talented, it will shine through, even if the circumstances aren't exactly favorable. Contador had to ride his junior races on an old steel bike, yet still showed great climbing skills which impressed many.

Froome showed nothing. Nothing. Riders like Valverde, Quintana, Nibali, Contador, they competed with the very best in the first few years of their careers: before turning 24:
Valverde had finished 3rd in la Vuelta and won stages in that race, finished 2nd in the WCRR, and won a stage in Vuelta al Pais Vasco.
Quintana had won Vuelta al Pais Vasco and won a stage and finished 2nd at the Tour.
Nibali had won Giro del Trentino and had 3 top 20 finishes in GTs.
Contador had won mountain stages in the Tour de Suisse and Tour de Romandie, won on Willunga Hill in the Tour Down Under, won Setmana Catalana and had several top 5 GC placings in Pro Tour races. Even in early 2005 he showed some impressive performances despite suffering a great illness in 2004.

Froome showed zip zilch nada nothing. I'm not asking for similar results to the riders above - but for crying out loud his best results were 4th place at the Herald Sun Tour and 3rd in the Giro del Appenino - and judging from the results he was part of a 3 men break.

Sure fine yeah you must be right, I won't bring up that he had no elite coaching/infrastructure until 2010 and was irritating Team Sky by the fact they could see the talent and data to say he is great rider but he would be very inconsistent, which they found out in 2011 was due to a bacterial infection.

Sky just suddenly decided that instead of getting rid of Froome after the 2011 Vuelta , they are going to give him a magic pill so he can become a good GT rider and challenge Wiggins before he had won a GT.